Legacy benefits of blood pressure treatment on cardiovascular events are primarily mediated by improved blood pressure variability: the ASCOT trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability (BPV) is an important predictor of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. The long-term effect of a period of blood pressure (BP) control, but with differential BPV, is uncertain. Morbidity and mortality follow-up of UK participants in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure-Lowering Arm has been extended for up to 21 years to determine the CV impact of mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) control and BPV during the trial, and amongst those allocated to amlodipine- and atenolol-based treatment. METHODS: Eight thousand five hundred and eighty hypertensive participants (4305 assigned to amlodipine ± perindopril-based and 4275 to atenolol ± diuretic-based treatment during the in-trial period (median 5.5 years) were followed for up to 21 years (median 17.4 years), using linked hospital and mortality records. A subgroup of participants (n = 2156) was followed up 6 years after the trial closure with a self-administered questionnaire and a clinic visit. In-trial mean SBP and standard deviation of visit-to-visit SBP as a measure of BPV, were measured using >100 000 BP measurements. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risk [hazard ratios (HRs)], associated with (i) mean with SBP and BPV during the in-trial period, for the CV endpoints occurring after the end of the trial and (ii) randomly assigned treatment to events following randomization, for the first occurrence of pre-specified CV outcomes. RESULTS: Using BP data from the in-trial period, in the post-trial period, although mean SBP was a predictor of CV outcomes {HR per 10 mmHg, 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.17], P < .001}, systolic BPV independent of mean SBP was a strong predictor of CV events [HR per 5 mmHg 1.22 (95% CI 1.18-1.26), P < .001] and predicted events even in participants with well-controlled BP. During 21-year follow-up, those on amlodipine-based compared with atenolol-based in-trial treatment had significantly reduced risk of stroke [HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.72-0.93), P = .003], total CV events [HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.98), P = .008], total coronary events [HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.99), P = .024], and atrial fibrillation [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.83-0.99), P = .030], with weaker evidence of a difference in CV mortality [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.01), P = .073]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal coronary heart disease, heart failure, and all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Systolic BPV is a strong predictor of CV outcome, even in those with controlled SBP. The long-term benefits of amlodipine-based treatment compared with atenolol-based treatment in reducing CV events appear to be primarily mediated by an effect on systolic BPV during the trial period

Rosuvastatin for primary prevention in patients with European systematic coronary risk evaluation risk ≥5% or Framingham risk >20%: post hoc analyses of the JUPITER trial requested by European health authorities

Aims: On the basis of the JUPITER trial, European health authorities recently approved the use of rosuvastatin to reduce first major cardiovascular events among ‘high' global risk primary prevention patients defined either by Framingham risk score >20% or European systematic coronary risk evaluation (SCORE) ≥5%. However, as these are post hoc analyses, data describing these subgroups have not previously been available to the clinical community. Methods and results: We randomized 17 802 apparently healthy men aged ≥50 and women ≥60 with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) 20% or SCORE risk ≥5%. During 1.8-year median follow-up (maximum 5 years) of patients with Framingham risk >20%, the rate of myocardial infarction/stroke/cardiovascular death was 9.4 and 18.2 per 1000 person-years in rosuvastatin and placebo-allocated patients, respectively [hazard ratio (HR): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27–0.93, P = 0.028]. Among patients with SCORE risk ≥5%, the corresponding rates were 6.9 and 12.0 using a model extrapolating risk for age ≥65 years (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43–0.78, P = 0.0003) and rates were 5.9 and 12.7 when risk for age was capped at 65 years (HR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.32–0.68, P 20% or SCORE risk ≥5%), but LDL-C levels not requiring pharmacologic treatment, rosuvastatin 20 mg significantly reduced major cardiovascular events. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT0023968

Adverse events associated with unblinded, but not with blinded, statin therapy in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial—Lipid-Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial and its non-randomised non-blind extension phase

BACKGROUND: In blinded randomised controlled trials, statin therapy has been associated with few adverse events (AEs). By contrast, in observational studies, larger increases in many different AEs have been reported than in blinded trials. METHODS: In the Lipid-Lowering Arm of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial, patients aged 40-79 years with hypertension, at least three other cardiovascular risk factors, and fasting total cholesterol concentrations of 6·5 mmol/L or lower, and who were not taking a statin or fibrate, had no history of myocardial infarction, and were not being treated for angina were randomly assigned to atorvastatin 10 mg daily or matching placebo in a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase. In a subsequent non-randomised non-blind extension phase (initiated because of early termination of the trial because efficacy of atorvastatin was shown), all patients were offered atorvastatin 10 mg daily open label. We classified AEs using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. We blindly adjudicated all reports of four prespecified AEs of interest-muscle-related, erectile dysfunction, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment-and analysed all remaining AEs grouped by system organ class. Rates of AEs are given as percentages per annum. RESULTS: The blinded randomised phase was done between February, 1998, and December, 2002; we included 101 80 patients in this analysis (5101 [50%] in the atorvastatin group and 5079 [50%] in the placebo group), with a median follow-up of 3·3 years (IQR 2·7-3·7). The non-blinded non-randomised phase was done between December, 2002, and June, 2005; we included 9899 patients in this analysis (6409 [65%] atorvastatin users and 3490 [35%] non-users), with a median follow-up of 2·3 years (2·2-2·4). During the blinded phase, muscle-related AEs (298 [2·03% per annum] vs 283 [2·00% per annum]; hazard ratio 1·03 [95% CI 0·88-1·21]; p=0·72) and erectile dysfunction (272 [1·86% per annum] vs 302 [2·14% per annum]; 0·88 [0·75-1·04]; p=0·13) were reported at a similar rate by participants randomly assigned to atorvastatin or placebo. The rate of reports of sleep disturbance was significantly lower among participants assigned atorvastatin than assigned placebo (149 [1·00% per annum] vs 210 [1·46% per annum]; 0·69 [0·56-0·85]; p=0·0005). Too few cases of cognitive impairment were reported for a statistically reliable analysis (31 [0·20% per annum] vs 32 [0·22% per annum]; 0·94 [0·57-1·54]; p=0·81). We observed no significant differences in the rates of all other reported AEs, with the exception of an excess of renal and urinary AEs among patients assigned atorvastatin (481 [1·87%] per annum vs 392 [1·51%] per annum; 1·23 [1·08-1·41]; p=0·002). By contrast, during the non-blinded non-randomised phase, muscle-related AEs were reported at a significantly higher rate by participants taking statins than by those who were not (161 [1·26% per annum] vs 124 [1·00% per annum]; 1·41 [1·10-1·79]; p=0·006). We noted no significant differences between statin users and non-users in the rates of other AEs, with the exception of musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (992 [8·69% per annum] vs 831 [7·45% per annum]; 1·17 [1·06-1·29]; p=0·001) and blood and lymphatic system disorders (114 [0·88% per annum] vs 80 [0·64% per annum]; 1·40 [1·04-1·88]; p=0·03), which were reported more commonly by statin users than by non-users. INTERPRETATION: These analyses illustrate the so-called nocebo effect, with an excess rate of muscle-related AE reports only when patients and their doctors were aware that statin therapy was being used and not when its use was blinded. These results will help assure both physicians and patients that most AEs associated with statins are not causally related to use of the drug and should help counter the adverse effect on public health of exaggerated claims about statin-related side-effects. FUNDING: Pfizer, Servier Research Group, and Leo Laboratories

Rationale, design, methods and baseline demography of participants of the Anglo-Scandinavian cardiac outcomes trial

OBJECTIVE: To test the primary hypothesis that a newer antihypertensive treatment regimen (calcium channel blocker +/- an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor) is more effective than an older regimen (beta-blocker +/- a diuretic) in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). To test a second primary hypothesis that a statin compared with placebo will further protect against CHD endpoints in hypertensive subjects with a total cholesterol or = 160 mmHg systolic or > or = 100 mmHg diastolic (untreated) or > or = 140 mmHg systolic or > or = 90 mmHg diastolic (treated) at randomization. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either amlodipine (5/ 10 mg) +/- perindopril (4/8 mg) or atenolol (50/ 100 mg) +/- bendroflumethiazide (1.25/2.5 mg) +K+ with further therapy as required to reach a blood pressure of < or = 140 mmHg systolic and 90 mmHg diastolic. Patients with a total cholesterol of < or = 6.5 mmol/l were further randomized to receive either atorvastatin 10 mg or placebo daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and fatal coronary heart disease (CHD). RESULTS: 19 342 men and women were initially randomized, of these 10297 were also randomized into the lipid-lowering limb. All patients had three or more additional cardiovascular risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: The study has 80% power (at the 5% level) to detect a relative difference of 20% in CHD endpoints between the calcium channel blocker-based regimen and the beta-blocker-based regimen. The lipid-lowering limb of the study has 90% power at the 1% level to detect a relative difference of 30% in CHD endpoints between groups

Effects of beta blockers and calcium-channel blockers on within-individual variability in blood pressure and risk of stroke.

BACKGROUND: Analyses of some randomised trials show that calcium-channel blockers reduce the risk of stroke more than expected on the basis of mean blood pressure alone and that beta blockers are less effective than expected. We aimed to investigate whether the effects of these drugs on variability in blood pressure might explain these disparities in effect on stroke risk. METHODS: The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) compared amlodipine-based regimens with atenolol-based regimens in 19 257 patients with hypertension and other vascular risk factors and the Medical Research Council (MRC) trial compared atenolol-based and diuretic-based regimens versus placebo in 4396 hypertensive patients aged 65-74 years. We expressed visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure during follow-up in the two trials as standard deviation (SD) and as transformations uncorrelated with mean blood pressure. For ASCOT-BPLA, we also studied within-visit variability and variability on 24 h ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring (ABPM). RESULTS: In ASCOT-BPLA, group systolic blood pressure (SBP) SD was lower in the amlodipine group than in the atenolol group at all follow-up visits (p<0.0001), mainly because of lower within-individual visit-to-visit variability. Within-visit and ABPM variability in SBP were also lower in the amlodipine group than in the atenolol group (all p<0.0001). Analysis of changes from baseline showed that variability decreased over time in the amlodipine group and increased in the atenolol group. The lower risk of stroke in the amlodipine group (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.90) was partly attenuated by adjusting for mean SBP during follow-up (0.84, 0.72-0.98), but was abolished by also adjusting for within-individual SD of clinic SBP (0.99, 0.85-1.16). Findings were similar for coronary events. In the ABPM substudy, reduced variability in daytime SBP in the amlodipine group (p<0.0001) partly accounted for the reduced risk of vascular events, but reduced visit-to-visit variability in clinic SBP had a greater effect. In the MRC trial, group SD SBP and all measures of within-individual visit-to-visit variability in SBP were increased in the atenolol group compared with both the placebo group and the diuretic group during initial follow-up (all p<0.0001). Subsequent temporal trends in variability in blood pressure during follow-up in the atenolol group correlated with trends in stroke risk. INTERPRETATION: The opposite effects of calcium-channel blockers and beta blockers on variability of blood pressure account for the disparity in observed effects on risk of stroke and expected effects based on mean blood pressure. To prevent stroke most effectively, blood-pressure-lowering drugs should reduce mean blood pressure without increasing variability; ideally they should reduce both

Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (A

BACKGROUND: The apparent shortfall in prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) noted in early hypertension trials has been attributed to disadvantages of the diuretics and beta blockers used. For a given reduction in blood pressure, some suggested that newer agents would confer advantages over diuretics and beta blockers. Our aim, therefore, was to compare the effect on non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD of combinations of atenolol with a thiazide versus amlodipine with perindopril. METHODS: We did a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial in 19 257 patients with hypertension who were aged 40-79 years and had at least three other cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were assigned either amlodipine 5-10 mg adding perindopril 4-8 mg as required (amlodipine-based regimen; n=9639) or atenolol 50-100 mg adding bendroflumethiazide 1.25-2.5 mg and potassium as required (atenolol-based regimen; n=9618). Our primary endpoint was non-fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infarction) and fatal CHD. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The study was stopped prematurely after 5.5 years' median follow-up and accumulated in total 106 153 patient-years of observation. Though not significant, compared with the atenolol-based regimen, fewer individuals on the amlodipine-based regimen had a primary endpoint (429 vs 474; unadjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.02, p=0.1052), fatal and non-fatal stroke (327 vs 422; 0.77, 0.66-0.89, p=0.0003), total cardiovascular events and procedures (1362 vs 1602; 0.84, 0.78-0.90, p&lt;0.0001), and all-cause mortality (738 vs 820; 0.89, 0.81-0.99, p=0.025). The incidence of developing diabetes was less on the amlodipine-based regimen (567 vs 799; 0.70, 0.63-0.78, p&lt;0.0001). INTERPRETATION: The amlodipine-based regimen prevented more major cardiovascular events and induced less diabetes than the atenolol-based regimen. On the basis of previous trial evidence, these effects might not be entirely explained by better control of blood pressure, and this issue is addressed in the accompanying article. Nevertheless, the results have implications with respect to optimum combinations of antihypertensive agents

Prevention of coronary and stroke events with atorvastatin in hypertensive patients who have average or lower-than-average cholesterol concentrations, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial - Lipid lowering arm (ASCOT-LLA): A multicentre r

BACKGROUND: The lowering of cholesterol concentrations in individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease improves outcome. No study, however, has assessed benefits of cholesterol lowering in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) in hypertensive patients who are not conventionally deemed dyslipidaemic. METHODS: Of 19342 hypertensive patients (aged 40-79 years with at least three other cardiovascular risk factors) randomised to one of two antihypertensive regimens in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial, 10305 with non-fasting total cholesterol concentrations 6.5 mmol/L or less were randomly assigned additional atorvastatin 10 mg or placebo. These patients formed the lipid-lowering arm of the study. We planned follow-up for an average of 5 years, the primary endpoint being non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD. Data were analysed by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Treatment was stopped after a median follow-up of 3.3 years. By that time, 100 primary events had occurred in the atorvastatin group compared with 154 events in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.64 [95% CI 0.50-0.83], p=0.0005). This benefit emerged in the first year of follow-up. There was no significant heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Fatal and non-fatal stroke (89 atorvastatin vs 121 placebo, 0.73 [0.56-0.96], p=0.024), total cardiovascular events (389 vs 486, 0.79 [0.69-0.90], p=0.0005), and total coronary events (178 vs 247, 0.71 [0.59-0.86], p=0.0005) were also significantly lowered. There were 185 deaths in the atorvastatin group and 212 in the placebo group (0.87 [0.71-1.06], p=0.16). Atorvastatin lowered total serum cholesterol by about 1.3 mmol/L compared with placebo at 12 months, and by 1.1 mmol/L after 3 years of follow-up. INTERPRETATION: The reductions in major cardiovascular events with atorvastatin are large, given the short follow-up time. These findings may have implications for future lipid-lowering guidelines